Only 50% of the population work and the 50% is not a large overlap with the 60%.
Hard to say, as this is still very much a new disease.
Important points we have achieved so far:
- Better understanding of warning signs of impending problems, such as falling O2 saturation even if it’s not accompanied by perceived breathing distress, that call for increased monitoring or hospitalization as opposed to those who can deal with this disease at home.
- Earlier interventions triggered by warning signs that appear before a crisis happens.
- We know a bunch of things that DON’T work very well or at all (hydroxychloroquine) and know not to waste time with them.
- We know a bunch of things that do help, like plasma transfusions and dextramethasone, which will help improve outcomes both in terms of fewer deaths and probably less permanent damage/disability.
All of that in under six months, and it looks like fatality/morbidity rates are going down even as infections are increasing. So yes, even without a vaccine we’re going to see an improvement.
If we could only combine that with better use of masks, sanitizing, and distancing…
Oh, yes, we’re also gaining better understanding of how this disease actually spreads, which is important for controlling it and containing it.
In other words - we need a goddamned plan! Which sentiment I can get fully behind. Having a plan during an emergency is the difference between dealing with the problem and blind panic and/or stumbling around in denial Neither of latter two are going to help deal with an emergency.
When “underlying conditions” are defined as such relatively common conditions as diabetes, heart disease, lung disease, and obesity I don’t think that’s a valid assumption to make. In fact, given how common those “underlying conditions” are I’d say there is considerable overlap between “working adults” and “people with underlying conditions”.
The belief that spread is inevitable is likely to be the cause of further spread, its a self fulfilling prophecy and the sad thing is that evidence shows this is not the case -
We already have models that work, admittedly we seem to be cherry picking on the ones that we think are most effective but steadily we are unlearning our biases.
Contact tracing and testing alone are not enough, but makes a difference,
Mask wearing alone is not enough but makes a difference,
Social isolation alone does make a difference but can be economically damaging.
Its for us to decide how much damage is acceptable -
Treatment does not reduce spread but can help keep some people alive
Political alignment (identity politics) does not reduce spread - however smart use of social awareness is highly likely to change attitudes and thus feed into other measures to reduce spread,
Leadership could be a big contributor to attitudes and could feed into reducing spread,
Personal social pressures could change attitudes and could feed into reducing spread.
Social cohesion and concern for others outside your own family turns out to be concern for yourself - if you care about others then chances are that your own chances of infection are also reduced.
A large part of it is attitude, not science.
Agreeing with Broomstick; and adding that many people defined as “nonworking” are actually working, they’re just not working for pay. Some of them are however taking care of children or of adults needing care so that other members of their household can go out to work for pay. Isolating those “nonworking” people means that the working ones will need to stay home, or else that people needing care won’t get it.
Also, lots of working people don’t know they have underlying conditions. Especially Americans. There’s a shit ton of us don’t who haven’t been to the doctor in ages and don’t know what are health status is. No one assumes they are unhealthy when they’re functional. But being functional <> healthy.
We also have to acknowledge that this is not 100% about what science can tell us. There are policy decisions to be made, after science tells us what it can. Those policy decisions, along with science, should drive the decision-making points in creating a coherent plan. If you haven’t made those decisions, the plan will not be coherent, and you will have a situation like the one we are in, where significant pain has been incurred, without reaping the potential trade-off benefits, or at least not maximizing them to make the pain worthwhile.
I would be all for the suggestions of many above that would kill many more people if I knew for a fact that the ones suggesting it would be exclusively among the dead. Maybe some of their loved ones too for good measure.
Unfortunately the virus doesn’t work like karma so I cannot be certain that the people who die won’t include a lot of innocent people whose ethics are not so questionable that they would risk the lives of others because they needed a haircut. As such, I’ll just stay on side stay-home, wear-masks thanks.
I like the Russian roulette analogy.
Except the gun is not pointed at you*, and the bullets are invisible.
You don’t know who you are hurting, and more importantly, you don’t care.
*not you.
It just occurred to me that a fundamental difference in the discussion may be whether you believe that the federal government can somehow be persuaded or forced to help individuals and states financially. It seems to me that your point of view on restrictions and approach will be extremely different depending on whether or not you assume that it’s a given that Trump and Congressional Republicans will continue to refuse aid.
The economy is more than just money, it is the production and movement of goods and services.
The govt can print, borrow, or even tax all the money it wants to distribute, but if there are not goods and services to acquire with those funds, then the economy is non-functional.
Without people working, we don’t have much of an economy.
Without people living(or at least healthy) we won’t have much of an economy either.
Should I call Dan Patrick’s (Lt Gov of Texas) office tomorrow (Monday afternoon) to congratulate him on the success of his plan to sacrifice seniors for re-opening the economy?
- Yes
- No
0 voters
What’s this?? A poll within a thread??
Yeah. It’s the gear thing to the far-right of the format box.
isn’t it exciting? I thought so the first time I found out we could do this.
In the Bay Area the politicians and the media were 100% behind wearing masks, with some mandatory. At the beginning of the mask regimen my supermarket had someone stationed at the door turning back anyone not wearing a mask. Now that person is gone, but mask wearing is still 100% during all my visits.
But I agree with you that it isn’t going to happen when the leaders of an area act like there is no real problem.
You seem to be unaware that there are very specific criteria for opening up, which even the Trump Administration published. The problem here is not that we don’t know what to do, but that the pressure to open up, especially from the right, made many states open up before the given criteria (which were only suggestions) told them to. They were sure that nothing would happen, but now even the red states are partially reversing course, by for instance closing bars again.
Putting the genie back into the bottle is going to be difficult, opening up costs money so places having to do it twice are at greater risk of bankruptcy, and most of these places still don’t get it.
They know what to do, but the will isn’t there.
Sure, but again, doesn’t this counterpoint assume some level of basic assistance (humanity) from the federal government to be palatable and practical?